When will OSX be 64-bit ??

[adamjay]

Any ideas / rumors / speculation on when OS X will have true 64-bit support for the G5's ??

i am looking to buy a Desktop for Audio to take some of the use off my powerbooks and turn them into mobile-only machines. also i need more processing power.

I am contimplating whether to get a 1.25 - 1.4ghz G4 (upgraded) or a G5 1.6 or 1.8ghz. For the Audio applications that i use where Cache size is a big factor in performance, an upgraded 1.4ghz (2MB L3) would run just as well if not better than the single G5's currently available (i've researched some benchmarks using the applications i use). and also save me a few hundred dollars.

IF OSX will go 64-bit say.. in the next 12 months, then obviously the G5 would be a better investment, but if not i'd have to go with a hyper G4 in the meantime and upgrade later.

Also, what effect would a 64-bit OS X have on a 32-bit OS X application? any or none? If i have to wait for the applications themselves to be written for 64-bit before i see a performance boost, then i might as well just get a G4. Applications i use commonly are Reason 2.5, Ableton 3 (which isnt even altivec optimized yet), Cubase SX, Peak 4, Final Scratch 1.1.5, and would like to use Logic 6 in the future.

thanks guys.

[bousozoku]

I would expect that Mac OS X Server will be mostly 64-bit by midway through the next release and that Mac OS X (the client) will be mostly 64-bit in no sooner than 3 years.

Most user applications won't derive a lot from 64-bit computing as is. It will mostly be 3D modeling and games, database, and video applications that will enjoy the extra headroom.

There could be some performance penalty trying to run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system, depending on how they might choose to support them.

[adamjay]

Mac OS X (the client) will be mostly 64-bit in no sooner than 3 years.



G4 @ 1.4ghz it is then. Thank you!

[aswitcher]

Any ideas / rumors / speculation on when OS X will have true 64-bit support for the G5's ??
SNIP
thanks guys.

I thought some of the Creative Suite stuff was being optomised for 64 bit now...

As for the operating system, I don't know how these things work but I would hope that what ever comes after Panther next year has some 64 bit options. That would be a big performance pick up and hense selling point against PCs...

[MisterMe]

Any ideas / rumors / speculation on when OS X will have true 64-bit support for the G5's ??

i am looking to buy a Desktop for Audio to take some of the use off my powerbooks and turn them into mobile-only machines. also i need more processing power.

I am contimplating whether to get a 1.25 - 1.4ghz G4 (upgraded) or a G5 1.6 or 1.8ghz. For the Audio applications that i use where Cache size is a big factor in performance, an upgraded 1.4ghz (2MB L3) would run just as well if not better than the single G5's currently available (i've researched some benchmarks using the applications i use). and also save me a few hundred dollars.

IF OSX will go 64-bit say.. in the next 12 months, then obviously the G5 would be a better investment, but if not i'd have to go with a hyper G4 in the meantime and upgrade later.

Also, what effect would a 64-bit OS X have on a 32-bit OS X application? any or none? If i have to wait for the applications themselves to be written for 64-bit before i see a performance boost, then i might as well just get a G4. Applications i use commonly are Reason 2.5, Ableton 3 (which isnt even altivec optimized yet), Cubase SX, Peak 4, Final Scratch 1.1.5, and would like to use Logic 6 in the future.

thanks guys.I would not expect MacOS X to go 64-bit until MacOS X 11.0, if then. You must bare in mind that 64-bit benefits only a tiny fraction of users only a tiny fraction of the time. You can run 64-bit applications now. There is simply no compeling reason to convert the OS to 64-bit now or in the near future.

[bousozoku]

I thought some of the Creative Suite stuff was being optomised for 64 bit now...

As for the operating system, I don't know how these things work but I would hope that what ever comes after Panther next year has some 64 bit options. That would be a big performance pick up and hense selling point against PCs...

Enabled and optimised are two different things.

[aswitcher]

I would not expect MacOS X to go 64-bit until MacOS X 11.0, if then. You must bare in mind that 64-bit benefits only a tiny fraction of users only a tiny fraction of the time. You can run 64-bit applications now. There is simply no compeling reason to convert the OS to 64-bit now or in the near future.

Surely rendering software, any video multimedia software would all benefit signficantly from 64 bit. I can see Final Cut for example being 64bitted with its next incarnation...

[aswitcher]

Enabled and optimised are two different things.

Sure. Ok, so your saying that they are not yet optimised?

[&RU]

Lets face it, audio files are big and having a lot of memory would help speed things up. The G5 can hold up to 8 Gigs o' RAM, that would be great for you... but your applications can probably only address about half that memory (at best). You will have to wait for patches to be released to address that memory (like Adobe did).

In the meantime I think your best bet would be the G4 -- and take the money you saved and max out the memory, and get the fastest hard you can justify. Then let your mac sing!

[varmit]

Apple to develope two versions, 64 bit and one in 32 bit. They are moving over all of their platforms to the 64 bit chip soon, say within the year, but they wouldn't want to leave their G4 customers or the ibook and emacs which will probably stay G4 out in the cold. When will this come out, I would say spring or summer of 2005.

[bousozoku]

Sure. Ok, so your saying that they are not yet optimised?

Yes, that is what I'm saying. They will work in PPC970 bridge mode. They will take advantage of extra RAM, but they are not 64-bit optimised.

If Adobe ever tells you that their applications are 64-bit optimised for Mac OS X, don't believe them. They're not even optimised for Mac OS X. :(

[MisterMe]

Surely rendering software, any video multimedia software would all benefit signficantly from 64 bit. I can see Final Cut for example being 64bitted with its next incarnation...I don't dispute you, but you are not addressing the original post. Applications that address a need for 64-bit can be written and executed on the G5 now. Indeed, several such titles available and are serving their users well. However, that is not the original question. The original question was when will MacOS X be converted to 64-bit. I will repeat the essence of what I said in my previous post. There is little reason to convert MacOS X to 64-bit when the current 32-bit OS can run your 64-bit applications.

[aswitcher]

I don't dispute you, but you are not addressing the original post. Applications that address a need for 64-bit can be written and executed on the G5 now. Indeed, several such titles available and are serving their users well. However, that is not the original question. The original question was when will MacOS X be converted to 64-bit. I will repeat the essence of what I said in my previous post. There is little reason to convert MacOS X to 64-bit when the current 32-bit OS can run your 64-bit applications.

So I guess it comes down to how long buyers of new computers expect to keep them, because within what, 9-18 months we will see an Optimised OSX?

[bousozoku]

So I guess it comes down to how long buyers of new computers expect to keep them, because within what, 9-18 months we will see an Optimised OSX?

How long was it from the first PowerMac 6100, 7100, and 8100 models and System 7.5.2 until Mac OS 9.x when all of it was PowerPC code? It was a long time. I expect that Apple with Steve Jobs and Avie Tevanian will work much more dilligently but it will still be slow going, depending on need and return on investment.

[aswitcher]

How long was it from the first PowerMac 6100, 7100, and 8100 models and System 7.5.2 until Mac OS 9.x when all of it was PowerPC code? It was a long time. I expect that Apple with Steve Jobs and Avie Tevanian will work much more dilligently but it will still be slow going, depending on need and return on investment.

Ok, so how big a deal will it be on performance and consequently marketing when OSX is fully optimsied (includng iLife) for the 64 processor?

Will performance of all apps increase signficanlty (I had read 40% speed increase)?

[Bear]

Ok, so how big a deal will it be on performance and consequently marketing when OSX is fully optimsied (includng iLife) for the 64 processor?

Will performance of all apps increase signficanlty (I had read 40% speed increase)?The OS being 64bit an dapplications (like the iLife components) being 64bit are two seperate issues.

As it stands right now, The OS can handle the larger memory supported by the G5 chips and should be able to handle 64 bit applications soon if it doesn't now. However, the applications will become 64bit ontheir own schedule. Software companies would have to release two different versions of applications which cost them more money (for a variety of reasons). I expect we'll see applications that can really benefit from 64bit being done first.

Photoshop (for instance) has been modified to take advantage of some features of the G5, which does improve performance.

There is actually only some things in the OS proper that would benefit from going 64bit. There have been many threads on these frums covering this.

[Bear]

Any ideas / rumors / speculation on when OS X will have true 64-bit support for the G5's ??I'm not sure if this is really relevant to your needs.
i am looking to buy a Desktop for Audio to take some of the use off my powerbooks and turn them into mobile-only machines. also i need more processing power.

I am contimplating whether to get a 1.25 - 1.4ghz G4 (upgraded) or a G5 1.6 or 1.8ghz. For the Audio applications that i use where Cache size is a big factor in performance, an upgraded 1.4ghz (2MB L3) would run just as well if not better than the single G5's currently available (i've researched some benchmarks using the applications i use). and also save me a few hundred dollars. Are you talking a single processor G4 and G5 or a dual processor? In general, for performance, the G5 will be faster than the G4 given the same number of processors and the clock speed of the chip being faster as well. Also being able to add more memory on the G5 might help.

Comparing the cache sizes between the G4 and the G5 won't necessarily get you very good information. If the L2 size was identical, then you could compare the L3 cache szes. The G5 having more L2 cache can in most applications make up for the G5 not having any L3 cache.

I have a dual 1.42GHz (L2-256K,L3-2M) and either of the available dual G5 systems (l2-512K, L3-none) would get me better performace. A g5 ystem would let me get more memory so I'm not bound by memory.
IF OSX will go 64-bit say.. in the next 12 months, then obviously the G5 would be a better investment, but if not i'd have to go with a hyper G4 in the meantime and upgrade later.Nobody knows exactly when that will happen, but companies are releasing software that has G5 optimizations, so your performance can only get better over time with the G5.

Also, what effect would a 64-bit OS X have on a 32-bit OS X application? any or none? If i have to wait for the applications themselves to be written for 64-bit before i see a performance boost, then i might as well just get a G4. Applications i use commonly are Reason 2.5, Ableton 3 (which isnt even altivec optimized yet), Cubase SX, Peak 4, Final Scratch 1.1.5, and would like to use Logic 6 in the future.

thanks guys.Some 32 bit apps will receive a performance benefit by the OS being 64bit. It depends on how much time the applicattion spends in system calls and which system calls.

To sum it up. The cache differences between the G5 and the G5 shouldn't be an issue. However, having more ram on the G5 might help a lot. (Even if you can't afford the memory today you can add it when you can afford it.) If you're not totally time critical, maybe you should wait for the next G5 update?

I guess I find it odd that you're talking about wanting better performance and are considering a G4 that is slower just because some performance improvments for the G5 aren't available yet.

[MisterMe]

How long was it from the first PowerMac 6100, 7100, and 8100 models and System 7.5.2 until Mac OS 9.x when all of it was PowerPC code? It was a long time. I expect that Apple with Steve Jobs and Avie Tevanian will work much more dilligently but it will still be slow going, depending on need and return on investment.Actually, the OS on the first-generation PowerMacs was System 7.1.2. The second generation PowerMacs shipped with System 7.5.2. The first second-generation PowerMacs included the PM 7200, 7500, 8500, and 9500. Another correction: no version of the MacOS prior to MacOS X was exclusively PPC code. System 7.1.2 had enough PPC code to give credible performance on PowerMacs. Each subsequent release of the MacOS included a large fraction of PPC code. MacOS 8.1 was the first release that could not be booted on a 680x0-based Mac. However, MacOS 8.1 through MacOS 9.2.2 maintained a substantial fraction of legacy 680x0 code. There were two reasons for this. One was that some portions of the OS would realize very little performance improvement for the work required to convert them to PPC-code. Prior to System 7, the Macintosh ToolBox ROM was written in 680x0 assembly language. System 7 through MacOS 9.2.2 were written in C++. C++ routines that had been written for the 680x0 could be converted to PPC code by "a simple recompile." However, Apple carried over the base of 680x0 assembly language routines from System 6. Some of them were rewritten in C++. Some of the Toolbox ROM calls were so dense that they could not be efficiently rewritten in C++ and were never converted to PPC code. Even today, your legacy app running in the Classic environment makes certain calls to the 680x0 emulator in the Toolbox ROM file.

[Opteron]

G4 @ 1.4ghz it is then. Thank you!
I'd go a G5. however the expandablity of the old MDD models has got alot of appeal.

[adamjay]

I guess I find it odd that you're talking about wanting better performance and are considering a G4 that is slower just because some performance improvments for the G5 aren't available yet.

Well it also has to do with Budget, of course i would WANT a G5 but if i am able to save $$$ and get what i NEED in a G4, then great. I would definitely save $$ for the G5 if i saw it to be immediately benefecial, but some of the audio applications that i am running aren't even utilizing Altivec yet (you heard that correctly, Ableton Live 3) and a 2MB L3 Cache in that particular app performs just as well at 1.4ghz (G4) as a 512k L2 G5 1.6 machine. And if software companies that are writing the code that i am using haven't even optimized for Altivec yet, i definitely don't see 64-bit coming in those applications anytime soon.

That said, i went and bought a G4 AGP Sawtooth today. 450mhz, 256MB, 10GB, DVD. $450. and i helped a local business in its first month of existence. I was able to upgrade the Ram to 512MB, swap the DVD with a CDRW, and add 2nd 20GB HD, all from an old dead PC that i had in the garage.
The 1.4ghz Sonnet upgrade card will be the next upgrade ($435), and perhaps an SATA PCI Controller in the future, and definitely a gig of ram. Not bad for under a grand, and i'm pretty sure it will last me years to come.

thanks for your insight guys, it certainly saved me several hundred dollars.

[Snowy_River]

I would expect that Mac OS X Server will be mostly 64-bit by midway through the next release and that Mac OS X (the client) will be mostly 64-bit in no sooner than 3 years...

One important thing to bring up is the definition of 64-bit. In some sense, OS X is already 64-bit. The kernel can address a full 64-bit memory space. However, from the application's point of view, that doesn't help, as Apple hasn't yet incorporated 64-bit memory calls for apps to make. So, apps are currently limited to being able to address 4GB of memory space, max. Who cares, right?

Well, we just had a front page announcement about Renderman Pro for OS X. How much memory do you thing that app can eat? Do you think they'd like to be able to render whole scenes, instead of snippets? And what about the big-time graphics workers who were, in some sense, the commercial main-stays of the Mac platform through the years? Do you think that they never use apps that would want more than 4GB of memory? Or the academic community that is beginning to take the Mac more seriously now? Do you have any idea how many scientific apps out there eat memory like crazy?

So, using the presence or absence of 64-bit memory calls from the OS as the measure of whether or not it's a 64-bit operating system, there is plenty of incentive for Apple to make OS X a 64-bit operating system. While not a trivial step, it's also not as hard as rewriting the entire OS. Also, by this measure, 32-bit applications wouldn't see any change whatsoever in performance...

[aswitcher]

One important thing to bring up is the definition of 64-bit. In some sense, OS X is already 64-bit. The kernel can address a full 64-bit memory space. However, from the application's point of view, that doesn't help, as Apple hasn't yet incorporated 64-bit memory calls for apps to make. So, apps are currently limited to being able to address 4GB of memory space, max. Who cares, right?



Sorry, can I clarrify something. Are you saying that there is no point maxing out a G5 to its capacity of 8 Gig memory because no apps can use half of that... really?

[Rod Rod]

Sorry, can I clarrify something. Are you saying that there is no point maxing out a G5 to its capacity of 8 Gig memory because no apps can use half of that... really?

the point of maxing out a G5 is the ability to have multiple RAM hungry apps open simultaneously, all running smoothly.

[Chaszmyr]

G4 @ 1.4ghz it is then. Thank you!


Regardless of whether or not the OS is 64bit, the G5 is a lot faster than the G4

[aswitcher]

the point of maxing out a G5 is the ability to have multiple RAM hungry apps open simultaneously, all running smoothly.

So thats a yes to accessing all 8 Gig right?

Does this mean than each up gets access to one of the 2 4gig ram segments rather than free reign to all 8 gig?

I am confused :confused:

[Snowy_River]

So thats a yes to accessing all 8 Gig right?

Does this mean than each up gets access to one of the 2 4gig ram segments rather than free reign to all 8 gig?

I am confused :confused:

Yes. The kernel can access all of the RAM (actually up to 16GB, not 8GB, using the largest RAM chips available), and handles handing out RAM space to the apps. Each app is only given access to a 32-bit virtual memory space, or 4GB. Two different apps, however, will be given access to different memory space. So, if you have 8GB of real RAM, the kernel could, in principle, divide that into two separate blocks of 4GB virtual memory space, and hand each of those two blocks to separate apps.

What happens if you don't have 8GB of RAM (or you're on a G4 - not sure about that as I seem to recall that the kernel had access to 42-bit memory access on the G4, but I don't remember where I read that), but have two apps that each want a full 4GB of memory? Well, then your computer starts using a disk cache to provide a larger virtual memory space. This, of course, means massive slow-downs.

So, the question is whether or not you have one or two (or more) memory hungry apps that you'll be using. If you only have one, increasing your RAM much above 4GB is pretty pointless until Apple implements 64-bit memory calls in OS X.

[aswitcher]

SNIP

So, the question is whether or not you have one or two (or more) memory hungry apps that you'll be using. If you only have one, increasing your RAM much above 4GB is pretty pointless until Apple implements 64-bit memory calls in OS X.


Thanks, that makes sense. Academic really, I can't afford 8 gigs of ram.

SO in theory Apple could build a new PowerMac with 12 or 16 gigs of ram with the current processors and it would work but they need to match a processor to each 4 gig to do that?

[Snowy_River]

Thanks, that makes sense. Academic really, I can't afford 8 gigs of ram.

SO in theory Apple could build a new PowerMac with 12 or 16 gigs of ram with the current processors and it would work but they need to match a processor to each 4 gig to do that?

Not really, no. An app can grab 4GB of memory regardless of whether or not it has processor time to run. A single 1.6GHz G5 can support up to 8GB of RAM and duals can support up to 16GB of RAM, so on duals 4 memory intensive apps could each have 4GB of virtual memory space with little need for a disk memory cache. Of course, they wouldn't see much of the speed up from this, as they'd all be fighting for processor time.

(Currently, Apple only officially supports the 1GB chips, but unofficially, the G5s fully support the new 2GB chips. Of course, these chips are currently obscenely expensive, costing on the order of $1000 each...)

[aswitcher]

Thanks. Makes sense. Well I guess we need to wait for those fully optimised apps and the osx 10.? to appear...

[leftbanke7]

Thanks, that makes sense. Academic really, I can't afford 8 gigs of ram.

SO in theory Apple could build a new PowerMac with 12 or 16 gigs of ram with the current processors and it would work but they need to match a processor to each 4 gig to do that?

I just read an article that said that the G5 chip can actually handle 4 TB of RAM, however, where would we put all those sticks?

http://www.freep.com/money/tech/sixfor25_20040325.htm

[bousozoku]

One important thing to bring up is the definition of 64-bit. In some sense, OS X is already 64-bit. The kernel can address a full 64-bit memory space. However, from the application's point of view, that doesn't help, as Apple hasn't yet incorporated 64-bit memory calls for apps to make. So, apps are currently limited to being able to address 4GB of memory space, max. Who cares, right?

...

So, using the presence or absence of 64-bit memory calls from the OS as the measure of whether or not it's a 64-bit operating system, there is plenty of incentive for Apple to make OS X a 64-bit operating system. While not a trivial step, it's also not as hard as rewriting the entire OS. Also, by this measure, 32-bit applications wouldn't see any change whatsoever in performance...

I went through this with the big machines in the mid-1990s. There was one machine which was completely capable of using 64-bit hardware and that was the IBM AS/400 with OS/400 and the Power PC_AS, which was an offshoot of the PowerPC 620. This is an operating system that was recently configured to have 448-bit virtual hardware, no matter what the real hardware is. If you look back, I think you'll find that the IBM System/38 with CPF was using 128-bit virtual hardware in 1979.

UNIX at that time, was only 32-bit but various vendors would claim 64-bit support because the file system could support 64-bits of something or the operating system could dole out 64-bits worth of RAM, but the operating systems were only declared 64-bits overall years later.

I hope that Apple moves quickly to avoid the original PPC mistakes--strong hardware and an operating system unable to take advantage of it.